Samurai and Ninja in Second Edition

[Unicore]

I think there is a misconception that casters can’t use weapons at all. A wizard with a rogue dedication can pretty much do the sneaky caster just fine, and still make the occasional powerful singular weapon attack. Then you have the rogue with a caster dedication that can do pretty much all the utility stuff with scrolls supplementing limited slots, then you have the red mantis assassin archetype, the shadow dancer archetype, the butterfly blade archetype and the laughing shadow magus to help fulfill an entire spectrum of martial to skill/spy to caster assassin fantasies. None of them are exactly a Japanese ninja, but they do represent a pretty broad version of how that fits in Golarion.

I played a goblin cleric of Ketephys with a focus on the darkness domain that mc’d into shadow dancer and was very much a magical ninja m-like character that used a bow and greater darkness to great effect, for another outlier example of how pervasive and easy combining stealth and magic and weapons can be in PF2.

[Ryangwy]

Unicore wrote:

I think there is a misconception that casters can’t use weapons at all.

It's not a misconception - it's a statement on the needs of a folklore ninja, which none of the existing options you mention capture on their balance of specific kinds of magic, weapon use and trickery because, well, it's a niche that is very authentically Japanese and everything you've mentioned are all very Western takes on the concept.

Sure, you can cast invisibility on a rogue. The 3.5e ninja is exactly that class, even. It's also not the folklore ninja, and I feel like PF2e should make a better try of capturing the authentic culture - one that's actually fairly tight knit, because it all came out at the tail end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century - than just saying 'but you can cast magic, stealth and use shurikens, why aren't you happy?'

Paizo can also just not do a ninja, of course, that's their right. But morso than the samurai, the ninja is a bunch of puzzle pieces that don't cohere well (admittedly, we're also missing e.g. the Chinese strategist ala Kongming who controls the weather and constructs formations of the eight elements to coordinate armies, for another example of an Eastern popular character archetype on melding natural magic and warfare that the Western sphere doesn't grok at all)

The difference betwen the ninja/strategist and a rogue/commander witha druid archetype is that the ninja/strategist controls nature to sneak/command, while the archetyped options controls nature and also sneak/command, but they're separate buckets that occasionally synergises. The understanding is very different. It's Eastern philosophy that even the five-element monk is tepidly skimming over because it isn't very prevalant in the West

[Crouza]

Ryangwy wrote:

I'm fairly certain the iconic Japanese sword user that does those things use a greatsword... I do agree that a lot of people have attached things to samurai that don't even match how they're 'properly' used, as a catch-all for 'sword thing in East Asia' (extra funny when the katana, like the longsword for knights, wasn't even their main weapon).

Roronoa Zoro comes to mind.

[Crouza]

Ryangwy wrote:

Unicore wrote:

I think there is a misconception that casters can’t use weapons at all.

It's not a misconception - it's a statement on the needs of a folklore ninja, which none of the existing options you mention capture on their balance of specific kinds of magic, weapon use and trickery because, well, it's a niche that is very authentically Japanese and everything you've mentioned are all very Western takes on the concept.

Sure, you can cast invisibility on a rogue. The 3.5e ninja is exactly that class, even. It's also not the folklore ninja, and I feel like PF2e should make a better try of capturing the authentic culture - one that's actually fairly tight knit, because it all came out at the tail end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century - than just saying 'but you can cast magic, stealth and use shurikens, why aren't you happy?'

Paizo can also just not do a ninja, of course, that's their right. But morso than the samurai, the ninja is a bunch of puzzle pieces that don't cohere well (admittedly, we're also missing e.g. the Chinese strategist ala Kongming who controls the weather and constructs formations of the eight elements to coordinate armies, for another example of an Eastern popular character archetype on melding natural magic and warfare that the Western sphere doesn't grok at all)

The difference betwen the ninja/strategist and a rogue/commander witha druid archetype is that the ninja/strategist controls nature to sneak/command, while the archetyped options controls nature and also sneak/command, but they're separate buckets that occasionally synergises. The understanding is very different. It's Eastern philosophy that even the five-element monk is tepidly skimming over because it isn't very prevalant in the West

Which ninja are you trying to be though when you talk about "folklore ninja"? Do you mean like Jiraiya with his affinity for toads and very high magic arts? Do you mean the version of Ninja's from the Iga Clan whose techniques were mostly misdirection, acting, and information gathering with a slant towards religious zealotry? Do you mean like legendary figures like Hattori Hanzo, who was primarily a samurai who used information gathering to help the Tokugawa?

Again, to reiterate what has been covered in this thread already. Everyone has a different bespoke idea of ninja in their head. And just going "Well make the one from folklore" doesn't help with even the original sources and folklore contradict one another and expectations. Hell, one ninja named Sugitani Zenjūbō was famous for camping in a tree for 3 days with a rifle and trying to shoot Oda Nobunaga dead. Does this mean we need ninjas to be skilled in firearms and get bespoke firearm feats as well? Or should we just use existing classes and archetypes to fullfill that fantasy instead, as has been suggested already?

[Unicore]

Ryangwy wrote:

Unicore wrote:

I think there is a misconception that casters can’t use weapons at all.

It's not a misconception - it's a statement on the needs of a folklore ninja, which none of the existing options you mention capture on their balance of specific kinds of magic, weapon use and trickery because, well, it's a niche that is very authentically Japanese and everything you've mentioned are all very Western takes on the concept.

Sure, you can cast invisibility on a rogue. The 3.5e ninja is exactly that class, even. It's also not the folklore ninja, and I feel like PF2e should make a better try of capturing the authentic culture - one that's actually fairly tight knit, because it all came out at the tail end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century - than just saying 'but you can cast magic, stealth and use shurikens, why aren't you happy?'

Paizo can also just not do a ninja, of course, that's their right. But morso than the samurai, the ninja is a bunch of puzzle pieces that don't cohere well (admittedly, we're also missing e.g. the Chinese strategist ala Kongming who controls the weather and constructs formations of the eight elements to coordinate armies, for another example of an Eastern popular character archetype on melding natural magic and warfare that the Western sphere doesn't grok at all)

The difference betwen the ninja/strategist and a rogue/commander witha druid archetype is that the ninja/strategist controls nature to sneak/command, while the archetyped options controls nature and also sneak/command, but they're separate buckets that occasionally synergises. The understanding is very different. It's Eastern philosophy that even the five-element monk is tepidly skimming over because it isn't very prevalant in the West

I have an academic interest in Eastern philosophies, but especially Chinese philosophies and religions and the broader spread of Buddhism from East to West Asia. I think it is pretty important to remember that PF2 actually does a really bad job (which is a really good thing) at representing a lot of Western philosophies, especially those that push into religious faiths and world views. Divinity as represented in PF2 (and D&D) has been called sacrilegious by many and the closer it would try to represent one particular religious world view, the more problematic the game would become for even more people, even if much of the fiction that inspires players of the game gets away with exploring those ideas and beliefs more closely than a game itself can.

I think this is important to point out because very few classes represent the deeper philosophy of the real world inspirations for those classes, and this is a strength of the system that needs to be preserved.

I think it is important then to focus on what mechanics the characters need in order for the players and GMs to flavor their stories for themselves without being bound to overly restrictive class narratives that prevent players from using them imaginatively.

I forgot to mention previously that the animist and even the oracle also work pretty well to mechanically provide unique ways of combining stealth, magic and weapon use in ways that are pretty interesting and unique too. Like I think that Kongming is a larger than life character that pushes much closer to a super mythic Old Man Jatembe, that is going to be able to do more than any player character is going to be able to do short of the highest levels of the game, so we are probably looking at combining mythic destinies and features that would probably be fairly underwhelming in play because the magical powers don't need to be able to kill demon lords or the greatest dragons in the land by themselves, but would level armies of lower level human soldiers. So an animist or druid would be able to harness the power of nature or nature spirits to be sneaky and to possibly command armies. I think some of the optional variant rules in the Dark Archive might also help give mechanical form to some of the ideas I see people putting forward in this thread.

[Dunwright]

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:

Makes complete sense to me to call the "monk" something else, it being a very inaccurate name to all but a few real world monastic orders/traditions. Other d20 fantasy games have already tried this, with Level Up Advanced 5e being the first that comes to mind with "Adept".

I don't think it necessarily needs to be renamed. While the monk clearly has its origins in martial arts movies and mostly-fictional shaolin fantasies, it's also something that's becomes established as an RPG archetype in its right, both in various TTRPGs (like the one we're talking about and its ancestor) and also video game RPGs (Warcraft, Diablo, Final Fantasy, Pillars of Eternity, Path of Exile, about a million others). Which is not unlike the druid, or cleric, or paladin, or several other classes. Of course you still could rename it, like happened with paladin -> champion, and it might be a good idea of you intend to totally rework the class fantasy. But if it the basic concept is still going to be a semi-mystical martial arts master with a focus on unarmed combat, I think monk is fine and probably preferable, because in context it probably evokes moreso the typical RPG concept of a monk class than it does kung fu movies, especially nowadays.

[Ryangwy]

Unicore wrote:

I think it is pretty important to remember that PF2 actually does a really bad job (which is a really good thing) at representing a lot of Western philosophies, especially those that push into religious faiths and world views. Divinity as represented in PF2 (and D&D) has been called sacrilegious by many and the closer it would try to represent one particular religious world view, the more problematic the game would become for even more people, even if much of the fiction that inspires players of the game gets away with exploring those ideas and beliefs more closely than a game itself can.

Oh, I definitely agree. It's been said before that on matters of magic, D&D is bad at describing anything except itself, and divine magic is one such core pillar of D&D magic. The most flavourful magic classes in PF2e are the ones most distant from D&D and also the ones who take the biggest sledgehammer to slot casting (animist, psychic, etc.)

Still, though, it's undeniable D&D uses Western fantasy as a baseline (and also became sort of a baseline for Western fantasy) and so just flat out doesn't have support for things common in Eastern fantasy. Inasmuch as D&D has ninjas, they (and monks) are drawn from Western superhero comics. Or the hilarious but real subcategory of Japanese Western Fantasy which includes Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy.

Unicore wrote:

Like I think that Kongming is a larger than life character that pushes much closer to a super mythic Old Man Jatembe, that is going to be able to do more than any player character is going to be able to do short of the highest levels of the game, so we are probably looking at combining mythic destinies and features that would probably be fairly underwhelming in play because the magical powers don't need to be able to kill demon lords or the greatest dragons in the land by themselves, but would level armies of lower level human soldiers.

I'm using Kongming as a touchpoint but this is what I mean by the fan-wielding strategist being a very common Eastern fantasy character that just... never appears in Western sources or the kind of Eastern fiction that gets spread widely in the West. The animist is a specific kind of Eastern character too, because they're based on animism (duh) which is, of course, different from being a strategist. Baby Zhuge doesn't need to shape the land or slay demon lords but turning an area of ground into mud and commanding an ally to Shove an enemy into the mud is definitely within scope of PF2e early levels.

Which, again, I'm aware that it'll likely never be made because the proportion of Paizo customers who are even aware this is A Thing is miniscule! It's just there as a supporting argument as to why it's simultaneously true that what I call the folklore ninja is both very popular and widespread in Eastern media and also very different from what TTRPGs will accommodate. The fact you're not aware this is a whole trope despite your knowledge of Eastern philosophy is kinda the proof of that.

Crouza wrote:

Which ninja are you trying to be though when you talk about "folklore ninja"? Do you mean like Jiraiya with his affinity for toads and very high magic arts? Do you mean the version of Ninja's from the Iga Clan whose techniques were mostly misdirection, acting, and information gathering with a slant towards religious zealotry? Do you mean like legendary figures like Hattori Hanzo, who was primarily a samurai who used information gathering to help the Tokugawa?

I picked the term to mean stuff like Jiraya, yes. Though I should note while the 'historical' Iga clan (there's a lot of postfactual myth-making about the Sengoku) obviously don't use magic, the Sanada Ten Braves version do and that's part of the folklore I'm talking about. It might be better to call them 'manga ninjas' or 'Naruto ninjas' to avoid confusion with other kinds of historical folklore but a lot of people seem to think Naruto is deviant from standard ninjas when it's actually very standard and I want to avoid that too.

It's in the same way the Paladins of Chalamange are also real people with real, non-magical deeds but the paladin (now Champion) class is about the story version that ride hippogryffs, heal with a touch and fight without dying for days due to divine intervention.

[Teridax]

Dunwright wrote:

While the monk clearly has its origins in martial arts movies and mostly-fictional shaolin fantasies, it's also something that's becomes established as an RPG archetype in its right, both in various TTRPGs (like the one we're talking about and its ancestor) and also video game RPGs (Warcraft, Diablo, Final Fantasy, Pillars of Eternity, Path of Exile, about a million others). Which is not unlike the druid, or cleric, or paladin, or several other classes.

I would be careful to avoid relying too much on other RPGs as a cultural model rather than primary sources, because a huge number of those RPGs share the same DNA. Warcraft and Diablo's classes in particular are heavily based off of D&D, and many other RPGs that have followed have either taken inspiration from D&D as well or Blizzard's own games. Using D&D-descended games to justify tropes in another D&D-descended game comes across to me as a case of the serpent eating its own tail.

As for the mechanics being discussed around ninja and samurai, I've started drafting two separate brews just recently, one to update the Eldritch Trickster and the other to provide a grab bag of iaido-themed and switch-hitting character options. The general aim here is to try to provide specific options players are looking for when trying to emulate a specific ninja- or samurai-themed character, while keeping those options thematically broad enough that they can conceivably work with a larger array of concepts. Assuming these options satisfy (which isn't necessarily the case, just for the sake of the argument here), what would still need to be covered?

[Kavlor]

In my personal opinion, I see absolutely nothing wrong with having a thematic Ninja or Samurai class. First of all, we already have the Viking, as well as several other examples of strictly culturally-oriented content. Secondly—if you dislike the abundance of specifically Japanese elements (and I myself agree that Tian Xia draws its inspiration primarily from Japan)—the solution isn't to reject potential content entirely; rather, you should advocate for adding more "flavor" drawn from other real-world cultures. It’s not as if there aren't plenty to choose from.

The main challenge regarding the mechanical implementation of the Samurai and Ninja lies, instead, in the need to thematically define what the very concepts of the Samurai and Ninja represent within the context of Pathfinder. I do not believe they necessarily need to be full-fledged classes; however, they could certainly be realized as thematic archetypes—packages of abilities drawn from various existing classes—for those players who wish to engage with these specific tropes.

[The Raven Black]

keftiu wrote:

If more of the Ninja fans were also clamoring for the game to get a Maharlika class alongside it, I might be more sympathetic.

Just clamoring for Shinobi might even be enough for me.

Come to think of it, I would like a "ninja" who excels at attracting attention to themselves while the real killers do the actual work.

[Agonarchy]

There is certainly room for mystical warrior archetypes that are different than the magus and compatable with the existing Str and Dex martial classes. Indeed, looking through a summary of The Tale of the Gallant Jiraiya, he started as a ronin samurai, dipped into a toad magic multi-class through a more dedicated sage/caster, and then did some sneaky stuff. Basically like Conan the Dabbler but with magic.

[Kyrone]

Ideally the game would have more useful archetypes that let you play more popular themes, but the game now is like 7-8 years old now? And the good archetypes are still mainly in the APG with a few others scattered in some books (with some adventure books publishing a broken feat or two). But hey,we will always get an hyper specific archetype that is mostly flavor.

[keftiu]

Kavlor wrote:

In my personal opinion, I see absolutely nothing wrong with having a thematic Ninja or Samurai class. First of all, we already have the Viking, as well as several other examples of strictly culturally-oriented content.

Why does one Viking archetype mean we need full Ninja and Samurai classes?

Quote:

Secondly—if you dislike the abundance of specifically Japanese elements (and I myself agree that Tian Xia draws its inspiration primarily from Japan)—the solution isn't to reject potential content entirely; rather, you should advocate for adding more "flavor" drawn from other real-world cultures. It’s not as if there aren't plenty to choose from.

I don't agree that PF2's version of Tian Xia is primarily drawn from Japan at all. I'm pretty sure they hired a diverse team of Asian and Asian-American talent to explicitly guarantee Tian Xia *wasn't* primarily pop culture Japanese in inspiration.

[SLIGHTLY EDITED BY MEC 5/11/2026]

[Powers128]

Pointing out the Viking I think is just to address a potential double standard if the main reason for not having ninja/samurai is about appropriation.

Mainly, I think the decision is just that what we got out of tian xia is more interesting and relevant to the team that put it together than having more bog standard Japanese pop culture stuff.

[keftiu]

Huh, the mods quietly took down a few posts in this thread.

[PossibleCabbage]

I mean, the thing about the "Viking" archetype is that this represents "how a lot of different people were in raiding parties" since your raiding party was populated by people in the community and the fact that we can explain "what Vikings are about" just through - boats, shields + axes, and sudden violence. Lots of different cultures potentially would have developed "boat raiders" we're just using the word for that job from one particular culture since it's pithier than "boat raider" (and pirate is more "ship bandit" anyway.)

So you can bolt boats, shield/axe, and sudden violence onto any character you want with the archetype.

If anybody has a suggestion for a similar culturally inspired archetype that is basically three things with a couple of short feats for each, I'm all ears.

[Easl]

Powers128 wrote:

Mainly, I think the decision is just that what we got out of tian xia is more interesting and relevant to the team that put it together than having more bog standard Japanese pop culture stuff.

Agree. It is more interesting (at least to me) for Golarion's people, places, and classes to be new and fresh and simply draw inspiration from history, rather than try and drop history in with a thin paint job over it.

Having said that, there are probably some minor mechanics that could be added in so that folks can realize their vision. Maybe a fighter feat that further increases the bonus given by Incredible Initiative and lets you draw as a free action, while you're wielding your chosen weapon. And for the other guys, maybe some sort of advanced Conceal Spell feat which reduces the cost to a free action or lets you move, cast, and conceal spell for 3a. There are also plenty of 'distraction' feats, so some sort of 'distracting spell' feat probably wouldn't be out of the ordinary.

[GlaciesGlace]

To me it sounds like what people want from a ninja is a stealthy magical trickster, which could just be called the Trickster. I would be all for a Trickster class tbh, since that sounds fun. Samurai are just knights with different hats so idk, that's just a fighter to me. The iaijutsu stuff I think could just be part of like a Ronin archetype, especially since real aristocratic samurai valued and practiced marksmanship more than melee combat.

[TheTownsend]

keftiu wrote:

Quote:

Secondly—if you dislike the abundance of specifically Japanese elements (and I myself agree that Tian Xia draws its inspiration primarily from Japan)—the solution isn't to reject potential content entirely; rather, you should advocate for adding more "flavor" drawn from other real-world cultures. It’s not as if there aren't plenty to choose from.

I don't agree that PF2's version of Tian Xia is primarily drawn from Japan at all. I'm pretty sure they hired a diverse team of Asian and Asian-American talent to explicitly guarantee Tian Xia *wasn't* primarily pop culture Japanese in inspiration.

No other country or culture on Earth gets its own class. There's no reason to push for Japan to have two outside of fanboyism.

One of the things I especially liked about the 2e Tian Xia books is how broad they are in their coverage of Asian cultures -- two of the new ancestries and several of the heritages are broadly Southeast Asian, one is Filipine, one is broadly hindu-buddhist but is given a Tibetan aesthetic, another is Chinese. Only one new ancestry, a versetile heritage and a couple of the additional heritages for extant ancestries are specifically Japanese -- adding to the, I would say, one and a half that already existed (Kitsune uses the Japanese term, but the base concept exists across East Asia and the chinese name is also referenced). On the class options side only one is specifically Japanese, and it's the Magical Girl one, i.e. a reference to distinctly modern pop culture, allowing it to feel more generalized and fitting outside the feaudal-into-Meiji vibe of Minkai.

In 1e the Japanese influences were a little more prominent, what with Fantasy Japan, Elf Japan, Horror Japan(s), and Seven Samurai-Happiness in Colonialism Japan, but even then it was hardly all-encompasing the 2e books add a lot of much needed nuance.

[moosher12]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, the thing about the "Viking" archetype is that this represents "how a lot of different people were in raiding parties" since your raiding party was populated by people in the community and the fact that we can explain "what Vikings are about" just through - boats, shields + axes, and sudden violence. Lots of different cultures potentially would have developed "boat raiders" we're just using the word for that job from one particular culture since it's pithier than "boat raider" (and pirate is more "ship bandit" anyway.)

So you can bolt boats, shield/axe, and sudden violence onto any character you want with the archetype.

If anybody has a suggestion for a similar culturally inspired archetype that is basically three things with a couple of short feats for each, I'm all ears.

Marine works as a culturally agnostic term to describe boat-riding warriors who specialize in fighting on foreign soil with more limited logistical support.

[moosher12]

GlaciesGlace wrote:

To me it sounds like what people want from a ninja is a stealthy magical trickster, which could just be called the Trickster. I would be all for a Trickster class tbh, since that sounds fun. Samurai are just knights with different hats so idk, that's just a fighter to me. The iaijutsu stuff I think could just be part of like a Ronin archetype, especially since real aristocratic samurai valued and practiced marksmanship more than melee combat.

I recall spending much of the last time these threads came on simply asking for a trickster class. The mechanical hole is easily filled by either a trickster class, or an eldritch trickster rogue class archetype, rather than racket.

[Ravingdork]

moosher12 wrote:

Marine works as a culturally agnostic term to describe boat-riding warriors who specialize in fighting on foreign soil with more limited logistical support.

Ooh. They missed a good naming opportunity with that one.

Easl wrote:

Having said that, there are probably some minor mechanics that could be added in so that folks can realize their vision. Maybe a fighter feat that further increases the bonus given by Incredible Initiative and lets you draw as a free action, while you're wielding your chosen weapon. And for the other guys, maybe some sort of advanced Conceal Spell feat which reduces the cost to a free action or lets you move, cast, and conceal spell for 3a. There are also plenty of 'distraction' feats, so some sort of 'distracting spell' feat probably wouldn't be out of the ordinary.

That all sounds incredibly overpowered to me.

You really shouldn't raise the ceiling on abilities in Pathfinder without very careful consideration.

Conceal Spell in particular is already borderline broken as written.

[Unicore]

It is a challenge of game design that people often mean that an option isn’t powerful enough when they claim that it isn’t possible.

[PossibleCabbage]

moosher12 wrote:

Marine works as a culturally agnostic term to describe boat-riding warriors who specialize in fighting on foreign soil with more limited logistical support.

"Marine" just strikes me as a little too modern/SF for a fantasy setting. Like how we do "ancestry" instead of "species" even though "species" is entirely descriptive (species having the same etymology as "special" just means "what kind?")

It would be fine though, but I get why they didn't go for it- if it was called "Marine" then it wouldn't have been about axes, and people would expect familiarity with guns.

[moosher12]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

moosher12 wrote:

Marine works as a culturally agnostic term to describe boat-riding warriors who specialize in fighting on foreign soil with more limited logistical support.

"Marine" just strikes me as a little too modern/SF for a fantasy setting. Like how we do "ancestry" instead of "species" even though "species" is entirely descriptive (species having the same etymology as "special" just means "what kind?")

It would be fine though, but I get why they didn't go for it- if it was called "Marine" then it wouldn't have been about axes, and people would expect familiarity with guns.

From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia: The term marinus has been used as far back as the principate period of the Roman Empire which began in 27 B.C. You're running into the daredevil problem, concepts that existed back then, sound modern, but are actually old concepts because your personal perceptions of what is new and what is old is skewed by media that highlights certain exoticisms while (more optimistically, glossing over, and less optimistically, suppressing) the less interesting.

And frankly, because of personal perceptions, it's simply easy to imagine a blue-eyed, blond, bearded viking with a horned helmet on a longboat because that's what modern media makes for the easiest fodder to the concept. Why imagine an Italian? Because your media leads you to subconsciously prefer vikings. It doesn't need to be called a viking, you just prefer it be called a viking because of these preconceived perceptions. Through no fault of your own, media simply has that affect; we think things are the truth when in reality they aren't, because the media we grew up in influences us. How many people grow up thinking pirates are cool adventurers?... Or that ninja make handsigns and blow fire?

Side note: This was an interesting wikidive, now I know where the name Ultramarines was inspired from.

Someone said wrote:

In the early days of naval warfare, there was little distinction between sailors and soldiers on a warship. The oarsmen of Ancient Greek and Ancient Roman ships had to be capable of fighting the rowers of opposing ships hand-to-hand,[1] though hoplites began appearing on Greek ships specifically for the boarding of enemy ships.[2][3]

The Roman Republic was the first to understand the importance of professional soldiers dedicated to melee combat onboard ships. During the First Punic War, Roman crews were inferior in naval experience to the Carthaginians and could not match them in naval tactics, which required great fleet maneuverability. The Romans therefore employed a novel weapon — the corvus, a long, pivoting plank with a beak-like spike on the underside for hooking onto enemy ships. This was possibly developed earlier by the Syracusans against the Athenians during the Sicilian Expedition of the Peloponnesian War. Using it as a boarding bridge, Roman infantrymen invaded enemy ships, transforming sea combat into a version of land combat, where the Roman legionaries had the upper hand.[4] During the early Principate, a ship's crew, regardless of its size, was organized as a centuria. Crewmen could sign on as naval infantry (called Marinus), rowers/seamen, craftsmen and various other jobs, though all personnel serving in the imperial fleet were classed as milites ("soldiers"), regardless of their function; only when differentiation with the army was required, were the adjectives classiarius or classicus added. The Roman Navy's two fleet legions, I Adiutrix and II Adiutrix, were among the first distinct naval infantry units.[5][6]

The first organized marine corps was created in Venice by the Doge Enrico Dandolo when he created a regiment of ten companies across several ships. That corps participated in the conquest of Byzantium (1203–1204), later officially called "Fanti da Mar" (sea infantry) in 1550., Venice also had dedicated naval expeditionary corps of naval infantry, recruited primarily from Dalmatia, called the Oltremarini (overseas troops).[7]

[Dunwright]

Teridax wrote:

Dunwright wrote:

While the monk clearly has its origins in martial arts movies and mostly-fictional shaolin fantasies, it's also something that's becomes established as an RPG archetype in its right, both in various TTRPGs (like the one we're talking about and its ancestor) and also video game RPGs (Warcraft, Diablo, Final Fantasy, Pillars of Eternity, Path of Exile, about a million others). Which is not unlike the druid, or cleric, or paladin, or several other classes.

I would be careful to avoid relying too much on other RPGs as a cultural model rather than primary sources, because a huge number of those RPGs share the same DNA. Warcraft and Diablo's classes in particular are heavily based off of D&D, and many other RPGs that have followed have either taken inspiration from D&D as well or Blizzard's own games. Using D&D-descended games to justify tropes in another D&D-descended game comes across to me as a case of the serpent eating its own tail.

I am well aware of this, and I don't see why it's a problem (and, by the way, what you've said about Warcraft/Diablo is also true of all the other examples I listed and to a varying extent is true of almost all TTRPGs and computer RPGs that have been made in the past 50 years). That simply is the space which this game exists in and it's a trope that's been propagating and reinforcing itself with minor mutations for at least half a century. I don't see any particular reason Pathfinder needs to look to "primary sources" (whatever that could even mean in this context) over the cultural niche it actually exists in and I don't think Paizo does either; they're more than happy to draw on other RPGs and modern fantasy media for class inspiration rather than, what, medieval manuscripts? The fact that "monk" is a well-understood archetype in this space is my entire point. If you are going to have an RPG with a mystic martial artist who focuses on beating enemies with his fists (which you don't have to do, but if you do it) then "monk" is simply the most immediately recognizable name for that sort of thing and a monk is exactly what it is (in an RPG sense of the word). Similarly if you were making a nature-themed mage who focuses on shapeshifting into animal forms and maybe calling animals and plants to fight beside him, "druid" is the most recognizable name for that sort of class because that's simply what a druid is in RPGs. You can of course name them something different if you want to stand out but everybody will know it's still just your RPG's version of a druid.

[exequiel759]

I feel discussion about "actually, this term was used 2000 years ago" don't have much value when most people are going to think the term is modern anyways. It happened with "daredevil" and it would happen with "marine" as well. Plus, I think "marine" sounds more like an official that's part of the navy of a nation rather than something generic that could be applied to everyone that uses boats and the like.

[moosher12]

That's a problem of lack of education on the matter and falling for common media conceptions. Which I feel is an ironic thing in this thread where people actively are against the simplification of our preconceptions of a cultural warrior, exerting that a culture with a particularly famous/infamous group should not be put on a pedestal in favor of other similar types of warriors, simply because it's the one we'd think of first.

Also, historical marines precede vikings by about a thousand years, plus or minus a few hundred. Does it also help the part where marine corps were used in the 1200s, well within the middle ages?

Granted, I should add the context: I don't actually mind if viking is used. It works well enough. But some folks are against ninja, and fine with viking. And consistency should be exercised. Someone asked if there was a neutral name for viking, historically, it was marine. If they choose to willfully drop it because they prefer viking, I put those people in the same category as the people who say that it "has to be called a ninja or a samurai," despite there being a clear road. Because to be honest, for samurai and historical ninja, there are clear roads to make them. (I only clamor for some clearer roads for folkloric ninja, but trickster/beguiler is the answer, not ninja).

[Teridax]

Dunwright wrote:

I am well aware of this, and I don't see why it's a problem (and, by the way, what you've said about Warcraft/Diablo is also true of all the other examples I listed and to a varying extent is true of almost all TTRPGs and computer RPGs that have been made in the past 50 years). That simply is the space which this game exists in and it's a trope that's been propagating and reinforcing itself with minor mutations for at least half a century.

Yes, welcome to the point. As I've said, most of the RPGs you've cited draw from D&D's bestiary and its take on character classes: by itself, this is fine, but when propagated to this extent and used as the main source of thematic inspiration each time, this creates a fairly closed-off environment where the flavor only makes sense if you're already in on what is ultimately a pretty specific zeitgeist. It also means that a lot of cultural tropes that circulate, which were often originated by people who were not of those cultures, are not terribly authentic to the source material and can sometimes be pretty reductive, even downright offensive. Using these tropes that are heavily distorted from the source material or fabricated whole cloth to justify their continued existence in other RPGs descended from the same game is making a circular argument.

Dunwright wrote:

I don't see any particular reason Pathfinder needs to look to "primary sources" (whatever that could even mean in this context) over the cultural niche it actually exists in and I don't think Paizo does either; they're more than happy to draw on other RPGs and modern fantasy media for class inspiration rather than, what, medieval manuscripts?

This is hilariously untrue. Paizo very much does refer to primary sources for inspiration, which is why world guides for regions like the Mwangi Expanse or Tian Xia draw heavily from cultural legends that aren't featured in the D&D-sphere, why golems have been remastered as warden constructs, and the game's new actual golem is a divine construct whose mechanics mirror the actions of the legendary Golem of Prague. This, by the way, demonstrates how going back to the actual source of these legends can make for much richer material, and makes it a lot easier to tell stories based on those legends, as opposed to just stories specific to the D&D-verse and its gaming orbit.

And to be clear: I'm not trying to say that it's bad to want to play a shaolin monk in a TTRPG. I think that's a perfectly valid thing to want, and it's great that we have class mechanics that emulate wuxia so well. Where I stand on this is that martial arts, as well as disciplined weapons combat or magical trickery, are all tropes that exist in many different cultures, such that restricting those to a very culturally-specific class like the Monk, or a hypothetical Ninja or Samurai class, makes it difficult to express those broader tropes in ways that emulate other cultures, which is why I'd personally prefer a broader martial artist class that includes all of the fantastic wuxia mechanics of the Monk among others. With regards to the Ninja and Samurai, this is why I don't think we need either as a class, as we already have classes that do most of the legwork. There is, however, certainly room to develop mechanics that emulate more specific elements of either character fantasy and add them to the pool of character options, and that I'm all for.

[The Raven Black]

moosher12 wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, the thing about the "Viking" archetype is that this represents "how a lot of different people were in raiding parties" since your raiding party was populated by people in the community and the fact that we can explain "what Vikings are about" just through - boats, shields + axes, and sudden violence. Lots of different cultures potentially would have developed "boat raiders" we're just using the word for that job from one particular culture since it's pithier than "boat raider" (and pirate is more "ship bandit" anyway.)

So you can bolt boats, shield/axe, and sudden violence onto any character you want with the archetype.

If anybody has a suggestion for a similar culturally inspired archetype that is basically three things with a couple of short feats for each, I'm all ears.

Marine works as a culturally agnostic term to describe boat-riding warriors who specialize in fighting on foreign soil with more limited logistical support.

Marine is definitely identified in modern culture to the specific US Marines.

Far from culturally agnostic, it is a strong US culture term.

So, it does not work here IMO.

[exequiel759]

moosher12 wrote:

That's a problem of lack of education on the matter and falling for common media conceptions. Which I feel is an ironic thing in this thread where people actively are against the simplification of our preconceptions of a cultural warrior, exerting that a culture with a particularly famous/infamous group should not be put on a pedestal in favor of other similar types of warriors, simply because it's the one we'd think of first.

The thing is that, regardless of what's real or more appropiate, most people that want to play as X likely want to play as the romanticized version of that concept from media and not whatever it was IRL, or vice versa. I think its been agreed on this thread that, regardless of how you approach a samurai or ninja class, someone is going to be dissapointed anyways because they either wanted the most "real" version of that class or the TV show anime version.

I don't want to repeat past discussions here, but if you name a class "daredevil" and not expect people to confuse it with the superhero that has been blooming in popularity in the recent years then I think you are doing something wrong. It doesn't matter if the word has existed for centuries and has another meaning, because the people living in the modern day and age are going to associate it to the superhero because that's the closest thing to them. Pathfinder 2e is made in the US so the word "Marine" for most people playing the game will sound like someone that belongs to the navy, even if the use of the word has thousands of years.

[moosher12]

I am someone who does not read comic books, and only watch the occasional movie. When I think daredevil in any super hero context, I ironically think more of Ghost Rider than Daredevil, because Ghost Rider was a daredevil before he died. So I guess I'm a minority if the first thing I think of is a guy doing bike stunts over a blind guy. Ghost Rider happened to be the movie I saw as a kid.

As for Marine sounding like it belonged to a navy. That's kind of the point. They always belonged to the navy, just that they belonged to the Roman navy.

Also, Marines are not exclusively a US term. Do the Royal Marines of Britain not exist? The Italian Marina Militare? The Fusiliers Marins of France? The Spanish Infantería de Marina? So now you're just ignoring European marines because you do not think of them as an American? As if America popularized the term when it did not? Bare in mind America is relatively recent on the naval warfare scene, if you were not aware. Where the Spanish and British marine corps are actually older organizations than that of the US Marine corps that exist to this day.

Teridax said it right when he brought up the golem. I didn't know about the Golem of Prague before Monster Core 2. I only knew about the golems of D&D. that was an opportunity to go to the root of the concept and learn about it, instead of staying stuck in the modern perception. It was a similar case learning about what an actual folkloric changeling was instead of just being a reskinned doppelganger many years back. The answer to "This term is not what I thought it was" should be "I should take this opportunity to learn about it," not "I'll stick with my conceptions of the term, thanks." Because if we're on the subject of problematics, that, would be problematic.

[exequiel759]

moosher12 wrote:

I am someone who does not read comic books, and only watch the occasional movie. When I think daredevil in any super hero context, I ironically think more of Ghost Rider than Daredevil, because Ghost Rider was a daredevil before he died. So I guess I'm a minority if the first thing I think of is a guy doing bike stunts over a blind guy. Ghost Rider happened to be the movie I saw as a kid.

As for Marine sounding like it belonged to a navy. That's kind of the point. They always belonged to the navy, just that they belonged to the Roman navy.

Also, Marines are not exclusively a US term. Do the Royal Marines of Britain not exist? The Italian Regia Marina? The Fusiliers Marins of France? The Spanish Infantería de Marina? So now you're just ignoring European marines because you do not think of them as an American? As if America popularized the term when it did not? Bare in mind America is relatively recent on the naval warfare scene, if you were not aware. Where the Spanish and British marine corps are actually older organizations than that of the US Marine corps that exist to this day.

Teridax said it right when he brought up the golem. I didn't know about the Golem of Prague before Monster Core 2. I only knew about the golems of D&D. that was an opportunity to go to the root of the concept and learn about it, instead of staying stuck in the modern perception. It was a similar case learning about what an actual folkloric changeling was instead of just being a reskinned doppelganger many years back.

No, I brought up the US Navy because that's what I assume most people here are going to be aware of since I think most people here are from the US. The fact that you mention even more examples of marines around the world (which I kinda did originally, since I used the term "marine" in a generic way, only using it in reference to the US Navy after the Raven Black did) is that the idea of using "marine" for class or archetype is going to make people think about someone that does service to a military force and not just someone that's really good at driving boats and fighting on them. Is viking correct? Probably not, but in the context of a high fantasy TTRPG I feel it gets the point across. "Pirate" would probably been a bit better, as the concept of a romanticized pirate that isn't a criminal but rather someone that searches for freedom and adventures in the seas is quite common in fiction, while viking is something most people would associate with "barbarian pirate".

Though, if I have to be totally honest, I feel discussions about how X or Y is named don't go anywhere. I engaged in them during the Risks & Rewards playtest because I thought (and I still do honestly) that either class received a fitting name, but ultimately, I honestly don't care as much. Paizo isn't going to change their names or those from archetypes at this point in the edition, so long as the content is actually well made and balanced it could have whatever name, even if the name can irk people.

[moosher12]

I think it's fine if a class implies an organization. Clerics imply that you belong to an organized religion, but there is a number of cleric characters, especially ones for restricted deities, who are played as self taught.

But you are right that there will be no change to viking at this point. And as I said earlier, I don't personally mind the use of the word viking. It's still evocative. It's only being tied to this thread to make this point:

Viking is a term that works. And you can make a roman-style marinus using the viking archetype. The same way if in an alternate universe, if it was named marinus instead, you could make a viking with the marine archetype. Viking works, because it quickly and easily brings the point across of what kind of warrior it is. We are lucky that we have alternate terms like trickster or beguiler that can be used for a folkloric ninja-like entry. But, a ninja works as a name that can be applied to trickster characters, too, and vice versa. The way you think of the super hero daredevil instead of a stuntsman, the way some folks think of a modern US marine instead of a roman soldier on a boat ready to mount on land, some folks hear ninja and think of a certain fantasy. If viking is fine, is ninja really so bad in comparison? It can still be called a trickster instead, I get it. But if viking is fine, is ninja really that big a problem?

In the end, people reduce and fetishize things. In fact, the Pathfinder book, Winter Witch, calls out that vikings are also just an assumption.

Winter Witch wrote:

It was also a rugged land, but even across its stony hills, bright patches of lichen and brilliant wildflowers made it appear more like a faerie land than the forbidding territory of the dreaded Ulfen raiders. In just a few days he had come to realize the Ulfen were far more diverse than the reputation of their pillagers would suggest. Since their narrow escape at Brinewall, the surviving members of the caravan had passed farms tended by men and women who, while big and hardy, resembled the seafaring marauders of their country as much as Korvosan stable boys resemble Hellknights.

[Easl]

exequiel759 wrote:

Though, if I have to be totally honest, I feel discussions about how X or Y is named don't go anywhere.

Unfortunately, names matter. At least to many people. This is why people who want a blaster wizard get unhappy when told 'play a sorcerer' or 'play a kineticist' '...and wear a pointy hat'. For some, it either detracts from the fantasy or doesn't get them where they want to be to role play the concept but lack the Official Label. And it's why the OP here would probably be unhappy with the answer "play a fighter" for samurai. Even though, in this system, that's a fairly good answer.

Magical ninja's a bit harder because PF2E magic is typically loud and expressive. Stealthy magic user is a place where there's room in the system for an archetype or some feats to provide additional support beyond what Conceal Spell does. A more limited, specialized caster that trades out depth of spell list in exchange for stealthy casting is definitely an area the game has not, but could, explore.

[exequiel759]

moosher12 wrote:

I think it's fine if a class implies an organization. Clerics imply that you belong to an organized religion, but there is a number of cleric characters, especially ones for restricted deities, who are played as self taught.

I think there's different naming schemes for classes and archetypes. "Cleric" implies an organization but it also a synonym of "priest" or "holy man", so its both specific and generic at the same time because it refers to a specific profression but refers to a generic theme. The rest like "fighter", "rogue", "wizard", etc. are usually names used to describe a characteristic or theme of a class, while archetypes can get a bit more creative and have both "Vikings" and "Lepidstadt Surgeon" as names, with one leaning into a more general thing like a class's names and the other into a very specific profession from a specific part of Golarion's world.

[exequiel759]

Easl wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

Though, if I have to be totally honest, I feel discussions about how X or Y is named don't go anywhere.

Unfortunately, names matter. At least to many people. This is why people who want a blaster wizard get unhappy when told 'play a sorcerer' or 'play a kineticist' '...and wear a pointy hat'. For some, it either detracts from the fantasy or doesn't get them where they want to be to role play the concept but lack the Official Label. And it's why the OP here would probably be unhappy with the answer "play a fighter" for samurai. Even though, in this system, that's a fairly good answer.

Magical ninja's a bit harder because PF2E magic is typically loud and expressive. Stealthy magic user is a place where there's room in the system for an archetype or some feats to provide additional support beyond what Conceal Spell does. A more limited, specialized caster that trades out depth of spell list in exchange for stealthy casting is definitely an area the game has not, but could, explore.

The thing is that a sorcerer or kineticist don't play like a wizard does, doesn't use the same attributes a wizard does, and thematically (even if flavor is flexible) don't have anything to do with each other. For these reasons, yeah I agree "play sorcerer" or "play kineticist" isn't the solution for the players that want to play a wizard.

But, let's say Paizo were to release an Int-based prepared full caster named "mage" which was all about learning spells and tweak them. I get the feeling most people that aren't happy with the wizard would be with this "mage" class, and it would likely result in the people asking for a wizard alternative to play that class instead. Of course, this likely isn't going to happen because Paizo wouldn't want to release a wizard+ class, but what people want of a samurai class is either a fighter or a fighter with super powers, so why do we need a new class for that when the fighter already exists and the fighter could get everything samurai-esque from an archetype?

You could even make both a "realistic" samurai and "anime" samurai archetypes to please both people.

[The Raven Black]

moosher12 wrote:

I am someone who does not read comic books, and only watch the occasional movie. When I think daredevil in any super hero context, I ironically think more of Ghost Rider than Daredevil, because Ghost Rider was a daredevil before he died. So I guess I'm a minority if the first thing I think of is a guy doing bike stunts over a blind guy. Ghost Rider happened to be the movie I saw as a kid.

As for Marine sounding like it belonged to a navy. That's kind of the point. They always belonged to the navy, just that they belonged to the Roman navy.

Also, Marines are not exclusively a US term. Do the Royal Marines of Britain not exist? The Italian Marina Militare? The Fusiliers Marins of France? The Spanish Infantería de Marina? So now you're just ignoring European marines because you do not think of them as an American? As if America popularized the term when it did not? Bare in mind America is relatively recent on the naval warfare scene, if you were not aware. Where the Spanish and British marine corps are actually older organizations than that of the US Marine corps that exist to this day.

Teridax said it right when he brought up the golem. I didn't know about the Golem of Prague before Monster Core 2. I only knew about the golems of D&D. that was an opportunity to go to the root of the concept and learn about it, instead of staying stuck in the modern perception. It was a similar case learning about what an actual folkloric changeling was instead of just being a reskinned doppelganger many years back. The answer to "This term is not what I thought it was" should be "I should take this opportunity to learn about it," not "I'll stick with my conceptions of the term, thanks." Because if we're on the subject of problematics, that, would be problematic.

FWIW I'm French and the fusiliers marins are not that well known, while US Marines appear in so many movies and series that French people will be far more familiar with those than with our own equivalent. And in spite of the name, we do not see the connection with the sea that much. More with "Semper Fi".

[moosher12]

It's worth a lot. If you live in France and attest that the local French are not aware of them, then that holds weight.

[Butterballtetra]

Ryangwy wrote:

Unicore wrote:

I think there is a misconception that casters can’t use weapons at all.

It's not a misconception - it's a statement on the needs of a folklore ninja, which none of the existing options you mention capture on their balance of specific kinds of magic, weapon use and trickery because, well, it's a niche that is very authentically Japanese and everything you've mentioned are all very Western takes on the concept.

Sure, you can cast invisibility on a rogue. The 3.5e ninja is exactly that class, even. It's also not the folklore ninja, and I feel like PF2e should make a better try of capturing the authentic culture - one that's actually fairly tight knit, because it all came out at the tail end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century - than just saying 'but you can cast magic, stealth and use shurikens, why aren't you happy?'

Paizo can also just not do a ninja, of course, that's their right. But morso than the samurai, the ninja is a bunch of puzzle pieces that don't cohere well (admittedly, we're also missing e.g. the Chinese strategist ala Kongming who controls the weather and constructs formations of the eight elements to coordinate armies, for another example of an Eastern popular character archetype on melding natural magic and warfare that the Western sphere doesn't grok at all)

The difference betwen the ninja/strategist and a rogue/commander witha druid archetype is that the ninja/strategist controls nature to sneak/command, while the archetyped options controls nature and also sneak/command, but they're separate buckets that occasionally synergises. The understanding is very different. It's Eastern philosophy that even the five-element monk is tepidly skimming over because it isn't very prevalant in the West

I'd love to hear more on the topic of character archetypes not found in the west! Do you know where I could read more about this? On the topic of ninja, i like the status effect focused, 6 hp, occult, magus equivalent suggested in the first thread.

[Easl]

exequiel759 wrote:

The thing is that a sorcerer or kineticist don't play like a wizard does, doesn't use the same attributes a wizard does, and thematically (even if flavor is flexible) don't have anything to do with each other.

Except that many of the mechanical choices are arbitrary. You point this out yourself. If PF3E comes out and the Official Wizard has unlimited (max R-1) blasts, or can cast spells they know any amount of times from their slots, do you think people are going to complain "no, that's not a Wizard!" Of course they won't. They'll likely be happy about both changes. To many, the label matters more than many of the specific mechanical choices. The only thing I see strongly linked thematically to the use of the label is Int as the core attribute. But it's easy enough to go Int 3 with a Kin or Sorc if brainiac caster is your red line for what it takes to earn the Wizard label.

Quote:

But, let's say Paizo were to release an Int-based prepared full caster named "mage" which was all about learning spells and tweak them. I get the feeling most people that aren't happy with the wizard would be with this "mage" class,

Yes exactly. The Wizard is not the class with vancian casting, the Wizanrd is the class with the title Wizard, no matter what casting it's given. If Paizo goes too far from the standard Gandalf template, players will complain. But there are many many mechanical ways to get to standard western trope pointy-hat caster, and which way Paizo chooses to instantiate it, is far less important to many players than the ability to play a class Officially Called Wizard.

The same thing is going on here. You could probably just copy the entire Fighter class entry, make some small trivial change, call it Samurai, and this would likely make folks like OP happy. Because having the Official Label is a big part of the ask.

Quote:

so why do we need a new class for that when the fighter already exists and the fighter could get everything samurai-esque from an archetype?

I'm largely in agreement, we generally don't. At most, Samurai might need something iaijutsu-related, but even there it's debatable. The system already has fast draw feats and initiative boosters - if you want to be pull-and-strike-before-they-do, you can already select choices for that. Magical ninja, there's more room because as I said, the PF2E magic baseline is that magic is loud and flashy, so subtle magic in support of stealth missions is a space the game could still expand into. At least IMO.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think Pathfinder is just never going to be a stealth-focused game, at least not in the sense of "the clever assassin gets in and out and dispatches their target with a single blow" sort. Since the game is structured by "a party of 4ish players work together" and "I am the sneak-master" is sort of a selfish way to play. "We all work together to fight the dragon" is fun for the whole party in a way that "I'm going to sneak up on him" isn't.

Remember the reason that Magic in Pathfinder became extremely flashy was people's ethical/worldbuilding concerns about characters using mind-affecting magic with nobody noticing. If you could just mind-control the merchant at the market, why pay for anything? If people regularly get away with this stuff, why aren't Wizards kept in cages so that other people can live their lives?

So I don't think we're going to get "stealth focus" any more than we already have any time soon.

[Agonarchy]

For stealthy assassins you probably want a swashbuckler or a magus for their big whammy hits, though a swashbuckler may need to discuss with their GM whether they can get panache while being sneaky.

[moosher12]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Remember the reason that Magic in Pathfinder became extremely flashy was people's ethical/worldbuilding concerns about characters using mind-affecting magic with nobody noticing. If you could just mind-control the merchant at the market, why pay for anything? If people regularly get away with this stuff, why aren't Wizards kept in cages so that other people can live their lives?

Magic in Pathfinder never became flashy. It was always flashy. If anything, it's become easier to ensorcel NPCs as the years went on.

1E didn't get a feat to do it until Ultimate Intrigue, 7 years in. Aside from that, you had to become an Arcane Trickster. 2E saw the ability co conceal spell from day 1. And witches and wizards can do it with relative ease. (Even easier in Remaster than Legacy due to the increation of the Subtle trait)

So if Paizo is discouraging it, there isn't much mechanical case for that, because I don't see wizards and witches experiencing such a discouragement.

[Unicore]

Yeah, the decision to make conceal spell work with no check was a mind boggling choice to me, but it was made clear that for a lot of players, the idea of having everyone in the tavern stop what they are doing and stare at the creepy adventurer who came into the tavern and just started casting spells was a detriment to their enjoyment. Also my table thinks the charm spell is still pretty gross and not a cool thing to do, even when it’s to do something like convince a teenage kid to go home and not get themselves killed trying to avenge a friend, because magically manipulating people’s desires is gross to us.

On the other hand, witch is mechanically another strong option for stealthy caster that can convert air of very magical ninja tropes well.

[moosher12]

Oh definitely, when trying to build a ninja for players, I often recommend Thief Rogue with archetype into either Witch or Wizard, with the main determining factor being whether or not they want to swap a cantrip with a familiar.

As for enchantments being gross, yeah they are, but that's more of a social limitation than a mechanical or systematic limitation. If the only thing stopping a player from doing dubious stuff with such powers is a GM saying, "Please don't, you're being weird." while that other table with the GM who fully allows that stuff is seeing mechanically legal characters go ham with atrocities, then the game rules themselves are not discouraging it. Granted, a reminder to anyone reading this, please always default to the Path/Starfinder Baseline unless you're in a table where all players consent to go beyond those limits. Express verbal consent in these matters among all players involved, alongside agreeing on borders of the new limits, is mandatory.

[Ryangwy]

Butterballtetra wrote:

I'd love to hear more on the topic of character archetypes not found in the west! Do you know where I could read more about this? On the topic of ninja, i like the status effect focused, 6 hp, occult, magus...

There is, unfortunately, no easy substitute except for heading into Japanese/Korean/Chinese language spaces and viewing their media, the more obscure they are in Western language spaces relative to their Eastern popularity the better.

On a similar line with the ninja, there's the sword saint, which Western takes on it simply call 'sword magic' often in the sense of literally casting like a wizard but using a sword as the medium (see: magus) but which in Eastern media refers specifically to effects that are generated by the art of swinging or cutting; they're more of a 'cut kineticist' than 'sword wizard' basically.

The magic used by ninjas in Japanese sources is closest to the primal tradition, not occult, but that's about half because magic in Eastern tradition is primal in principle and half because occult is the most explicitly modern of the traditions. I will grumble a bit if ninjas can't summon toads or breathe fire but here's to another losing battle.

Unicore wrote:

On the other hand, witch is mechanically another strong option for stealthy caster that can convert air of very magical ninja tropes well.

I am, uh, kinda interested to know how you got that? I'd put animist or druid way higher.

[moosher12]

Reminds me of an old request I've had for Kineticist, where I wished there was a feat where you could channel your kineticism through an implement, rather than only being able to create a weapon of kinetic energy. The character concept at the time, for example, was using a pair of fighting fans to generate wind from. But unfortunately you can only carry one fan if you wanna produce kineticism, but if you have two fans, you are incapable of doing it.

Which is to say, two-handed katana cut-kineticist does not work, because both hands are taken. Only one-handed works.

[Unicore]

Ryangwy wrote:

Unicore wrote:

On the other hand, witch is mechanically another strong option for stealthy caster that can convert air of very magical ninja tropes well.

I am, uh, kinda interested to know how you got that? I'd put animist or druid way higher.

Mechanically not narratively. The witch can be a primal caster with a familiar/spirit creature that helps them connect to their magic, which is learned, and they can cast stealthily and they can get good cantrips and focus spells that they can cast repeatedly.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

I hear everyone saying Primal tradition for ninjas, and I'm glad we're acknowledging that elemental magic powers are far more traditional to the pop culture ninja than most who decry the "naruto-ninja" would expect, but I think we're maybe overselling it a little. The ninja indeed traditionally wielded control over the five Chinese elements in depictions (and still does in more recent examples) but imho the Primal list is too shy on powers like invisibility, flight, and illusion.

Meanwhile, the Arcane list includes all of elemental control, limited shapeshifting into small animals, flight, ability to create illusory duplicates, and is perhaps the discipline most associated with using esoteric hand gestures and words to cast spells (although I doubt attempting to model the practice of kujikiri would go far beyond informing descriptions of spellcasting activities).

In many ways, the traditional ninja is indeed a wizard or Arcane witch trained in stealth and deception and a few iconic weapons. The wizard's spellbook might take the form of books of ninjutsu, but this is probably just the most appropriate cultural expression of the trappings of wizardry in Minkai, and would not be unexpected. Ninjas with familiars would be a bit less direct in the theming, but a shadowy ninja familiar who teaches you magic would certainly not look out of place.

Mechanically, rogue with a wizard archetype doesn't satisfy the player's desire to be a ninja, but in terms of lists of abilities and thematic coherence, it nails the traditional folkloric ninja of pop culture failry adeptly.

The only thing I feel would be needed is a mechanic to wed the spellcasting and stealthy abilities better, whether as a subclass of rogue that gives some cunning mystical spy/assassin magic (rather like the old Assassin prestige class from 3.5e), or else some school of wizardry dedicated to stealth which comes packaged with a good reason to carry a shuriken or sword.

PS I made onto page 3!

Edit: actually while I'm here, why don't I talk about a thing I feel the game is missing that would help embody the samurai fantasy within published options - I agree with everyone who has said that Iaido could be an archetype (or at least the fantasy expression of it). As a bonus, it would not only allow for iaijutsu style samurai characters, but depending on design could also help recreate the Mortal Draw technique from Legend of Zelda (if you approach an enemy with your sword sheathed, you gain a massive damage boost for striking them with the draw attack)